> Amazon, for instance, hired about 780,000 people during the pandemic. Meta, too, had more than doubled its staff in this period, going from about 40,000 to 87,000. Even Microsoft had hired about 77,000 people just before the pandemic.
> Apple, in comparison, is believed to have hired under 20,000 people during the period of the pandemic.
Can't layoff people you didn't hire.
Besides, if they lay anyone off, it'll be through retail (already happening in their third-party channel sales staff, who are employed by Apple but work in stores like Best Buy) and eventually retail closures when/if they can do it without being accused of more union-busting.
Cook has made several decisions in the past handful of years that seem to show an ability to resist the group think that exists among the large tech companies leadership.
Let's be real - Apple outsources the dirty work of hiring/firing loads of workers to Foxconn. If the demand for iPhones slips, there will still be people out of a job, it will simply be factory workers in China/India who likely have far less savings to fall back on.
I don't recall whether this was ever stated explicitly, but I always had the impression that this is one of the elements of Apple's strategy that is still driven by the tribal memory of the late 1990s turmoil. Both Steve Jobs and Tim Cook were there at the time, and especially the former (who also had witnessed a 1980s bust) was determined to never be in this position again.
So as a consequence:
* Apple is hoarding cash to an extent that business analysts dislike (although Tim has reduced this to some extent)
* Teams are being run leaner than they'd like to be (not nearly as much so as in the pre-iOS times, admittedly)
* Conversely, since the company builds good reserves and not too much bloat in good times, it can and will avoid overreacting to bad times.
> not nearly as much so as in the pre-iOS times, admittedly
deserves better than a parenthetical. Zoom out, and Apple's been on a serious hiring binge for the last decade, from 72,800 employees in 2012 to 164,000 in 2022.
(Both numbers include retail; in 2012, 58% were retail, and they don't seem to break it down anymore in 2022.)
This is such a weird topic. The comparison is between companies that didn't exist 20 years ago like Meta and the 50 year old industry veteran Apple. Of course Apple didn't hire as fast, they were established. That's like saying a 20 year old college student grew more over the past decade than a 40 year old engineer. Yea, that's how life works.
What does the age of the corporations have to do with how responsibly they staff their business(es)? Also, I'd suggest that the assertion that corporations somehow all move towards responsibly managing staffing numbers warrants some supporting documentation. The article we're talking about already indicates a pretty significant example that directly contradicts what you're suggesting: Microsoft -- actually an older business than Apple, for that matter.
The answer is rather pedestrian: Apple is mostly a hardware company.
Apple isn't primarily in e-commerce, streaming or online ads and did not get as big a boost from millions of people suddenly trapped in their homes as other tech companies. Apple was never tempted to overhire, I suspect Apple had the opposite pressure during lockdowns due to its many retail workers seeing fewer customers, while Amazon's warehouses were brisk.
Apple is the only one that doesn’t seem to start up hundreds of obviously useless projects.
Google will hire thousands to work on an obviously doomed streaming service, to build a new OS, and so many other obviously bad ideas and then just fire them all later.
Vanishingly few Apple products seem to be discontinued. Usually after a long life like the iPod.
I can't think of a company more blatantly engaged in anti-competitive practices than Apple, but I'm glad to see all that unfairly amassed wealth benefitting even the lowest rungs of its corporate hierarchy through the unusual benefit of not being terminated at the drop of a hat. Bravo!
I've thought about this, and I agree, and I'm no lover of any of the FAANGs. It makes Apple look like they know what they're doing, whilst the others are just following others and going in and out with the tide. I think it all boils down to Tim Cook. Tim always seemed analytical and strategic in his thinking, and Apple's behaviour in this matter only serves to underscore that. As an operational guy, I think Tim is the best that any company has ever seen.
You make them sound like saints. They are not, and they have a history of being less scrupulous than some of these other companies. Here's just a small example of what they're capable of when their obsession for secrecy and control makes them flex their corporate muscle: http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/09/07/iphone.5.probe/ind...
And we didn't even talk about their sweatshops in China which has always had persistent labor-abuse issues[0], the Chinese government boosting iPhone production with child slave labor, and all the many other scandals they've been involved with.
I really have no idea how anyone would get the notion that they are any better than the rest of the pack. Perhaps their upbeat pristine presentations, live from Cupertino. They should broadcast one from their sweatshops in Shenzhen. Some of the highschool kids they pressed into 11 hour shifts to assemble their iPhones could sing the praise of Tim Cook: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/21/apple-iphone-x-reportedly-as...
Yup its just that they have become the largest seller of status signalling veblan goods in history, in times where inequality is at its highest.
It would be nice instead, if they used their cash hoard to stop wasting time upgrading the iphone with more superficial shit. Bring prices of the phones down to 50 bucks. Put it in the hands of everyone. And kill the toxic advertising supported attention economy that has caused chaos all over the world.
Now its just another group of unimaginative optimizing corporate robots, with no actual compass heading beyond hoarding cash.
The recent push by Apple to promote privacy controls has attracted and renewed trust in the brand. That's my theory as a partial explanation of recent success.
They correctly identified privacy controls as something people actually want for real, even just knowing it's there is a nice feeling. Knowing my front door is reinforced with 7 optional locks, is much better than a fly-screen door with a privacy policy attached.
Meanwhile, MS and Google and Facebook remove options and rely on the opposite of privacy: over-sharing by default. Telemetry by default. Ads, suggestions, ads pretending to be suggestions, bloatware.
Apple is the one commercial entity that could completely disrupt surveillance capitalism and reboot the digital space to an era reminiscent of the Microsoft monopoly - but now with their huge attached and interoperable mobile user base.
What they simply need to do is make self-hosting (using Mac devices) trivially easy and support a number of new/updated protocols for decentralized online interactions (messaging, blogs, search, social etc).
Monopolies are never optimal, but given the dismal moral basis of the other "big tech" I'd take it any day...
Don't they simply need the people to actually get stuff out the door? Almost every other year teams are being shoved into another department to the detriment of a product, so they can get something else out because otherwise it won't happen. Sounds like they actually need more people, not less. To me, Apple always sounds like it's spread way too thin or running on the absolute minimum.
Meanwhile I'm still looking at bugs in my OS that have survived a decade.
The Apple brand has some serious cachet. They can attract top-shelf people, and keep the salaries reasonable.
I worked for a company that had similar "cachet," and they were cheap bastards, but they did keep people, and their posture resulted in remarkably few "non-serious" applicants. The people who applied really wanted to work there.
As a hiring manager, I appreciated not having to sort through a pile of totally unsuited résumés, and, as a bonus, the ones that were unsuited, on paper, were often the high-achieving, ambitious "diamond in the rough" types that I looked for.
I don’t think Apple went on a hiring spree like the rest of the tech giants during the pandemic, but there is still time for even Apple to start cutting jobs.
Well, Tim Cook started by halving his compensation.
I didn't hear anything like that from his fellow CEOs who all "took full responsibility" for the choice of going for mass firing instead.
I thought I saw an article recently about a memo that Nvidia’s CEO had sent everyone about how strongly he opposes layoffs in general. So Apple would not be the only one?
Beyond hiring and into product design and even marketing I see Apple’s approach as generative. They’re willing to step into new territory, which precludes following others and frequent reactivity. This generative, self-directed style is juxtaposed by the reactive approach of Google, Amazon, and most other huge megacorps.
I’m not sure what’s going on. Obviously Apple has a stronger vision than most tech companies. Obviously most tech companies chase returns and live in fear of missed opportunities. Maybe it is simply this combination of factors that sets Apple apart from the crowd.
Tim Apple was the one who brought the company from being a financial war zone to an extremely profitable company - by overhauling their logistics. He is ultimately a logistics and supply chain man, and he hates waste.
By the way, this is a good example of how vision and ideas (Jobs) will not build a successful company alone without execution. Apple always struggled with that until Jobs brought in Cook.
Of course, Steve Jobs would never allow the Weather App in the new MacOS to be so bad compared to Dark Sky ;)
The situation changed and in a market economy you can adjust quickly. Not sure what is problem.
This is unlike Twitter where a firm is destroyed and people fired not because of situation but because someone has money to burn. And instead of creating a new firm to compete he just fired people of that firm he did not like.
That is the “good” and “bad” of market system. Sorry but both involved firing people.
[+] [-] trynewideas|3 years ago|reply
> Amazon, for instance, hired about 780,000 people during the pandemic. Meta, too, had more than doubled its staff in this period, going from about 40,000 to 87,000. Even Microsoft had hired about 77,000 people just before the pandemic.
> Apple, in comparison, is believed to have hired under 20,000 people during the period of the pandemic.
Can't layoff people you didn't hire.
Besides, if they lay anyone off, it'll be through retail (already happening in their third-party channel sales staff, who are employed by Apple but work in stores like Best Buy) and eventually retail closures when/if they can do it without being accused of more union-busting.
[+] [-] gpt5|3 years ago|reply
The Amazon layoffs numbers represent corporate roles.
Someone is comparing Apples and Oranges
[+] [-] simplyluke|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 2muchcoffeeman|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrischen|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] verst|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JustLurking2022|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mgh2|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] microtherion|3 years ago|reply
So as a consequence:
* Apple is hoarding cash to an extent that business analysts dislike (although Tim has reduced this to some extent)
* Teams are being run leaner than they'd like to be (not nearly as much so as in the pre-iOS times, admittedly)
* Conversely, since the company builds good reserves and not too much bloat in good times, it can and will avoid overreacting to bad times.
[+] [-] valleyer|3 years ago|reply
> not nearly as much so as in the pre-iOS times, admittedly
deserves better than a parenthetical. Zoom out, and Apple's been on a serious hiring binge for the last decade, from 72,800 employees in 2012 to 164,000 in 2022.
(Both numbers include retail; in 2012, 58% were retail, and they don't seem to break it down anymore in 2022.)
[+] [-] lanza|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amatecha|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Centigonal|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] juve1996|3 years ago|reply
The age of the company isn't relevant imo.
[+] [-] brown9-2|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] webwielder2|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sangnoir|3 years ago|reply
Apple isn't primarily in e-commerce, streaming or online ads and did not get as big a boost from millions of people suddenly trapped in their homes as other tech companies. Apple was never tempted to overhire, I suspect Apple had the opposite pressure during lockdowns due to its many retail workers seeing fewer customers, while Amazon's warehouses were brisk.
[+] [-] Gigachad|3 years ago|reply
Google will hire thousands to work on an obviously doomed streaming service, to build a new OS, and so many other obviously bad ideas and then just fire them all later.
Vanishingly few Apple products seem to be discontinued. Usually after a long life like the iPod.
[+] [-] daevout|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blippage|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NeverFade|3 years ago|reply
And we didn't even talk about their sweatshops in China which has always had persistent labor-abuse issues[0], the Chinese government boosting iPhone production with child slave labor, and all the many other scandals they've been involved with.
I really have no idea how anyone would get the notion that they are any better than the rest of the pack. Perhaps their upbeat pristine presentations, live from Cupertino. They should broadcast one from their sweatshops in Shenzhen. Some of the highschool kids they pressed into 11 hour shifts to assemble their iPhones could sing the praise of Tim Cook: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/21/apple-iphone-x-reportedly-as...
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/11/business/dealbook/foxconn...
EDIT: clarified some comments and added better sources.
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gsatic|3 years ago|reply
It would be nice instead, if they used their cash hoard to stop wasting time upgrading the iphone with more superficial shit. Bring prices of the phones down to 50 bucks. Put it in the hands of everyone. And kill the toxic advertising supported attention economy that has caused chaos all over the world.
Now its just another group of unimaginative optimizing corporate robots, with no actual compass heading beyond hoarding cash.
[+] [-] joadha|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] olliej|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ulfw|3 years ago|reply
Microsoft, Google, Apple all have enormous amounts of cash stored thanks to their fantastic earnings for so many years.
[+] [-] atkailash|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] senttoschool|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exodust|3 years ago|reply
They correctly identified privacy controls as something people actually want for real, even just knowing it's there is a nice feeling. Knowing my front door is reinforced with 7 optional locks, is much better than a fly-screen door with a privacy policy attached.
Meanwhile, MS and Google and Facebook remove options and rely on the opposite of privacy: over-sharing by default. Telemetry by default. Ads, suggestions, ads pretending to be suggestions, bloatware.
[+] [-] college_physics|3 years ago|reply
What they simply need to do is make self-hosting (using Mac devices) trivially easy and support a number of new/updated protocols for decentralized online interactions (messaging, blogs, search, social etc).
Monopolies are never optimal, but given the dismal moral basis of the other "big tech" I'd take it any day...
[+] [-] michelb|3 years ago|reply
Meanwhile I'm still looking at bugs in my OS that have survived a decade.
[+] [-] ChrisMarshallNY|3 years ago|reply
I worked for a company that had similar "cachet," and they were cheap bastards, but they did keep people, and their posture resulted in remarkably few "non-serious" applicants. The people who applied really wanted to work there.
As a hiring manager, I appreciated not having to sort through a pile of totally unsuited résumés, and, as a bonus, the ones that were unsuited, on paper, were often the high-achieving, ambitious "diamond in the rough" types that I looked for.
[+] [-] tonmoy|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] camillomiller|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mjfl|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MontagFTB|3 years ago|reply
Granted it’s comparing apples to… adobes, but my point is it’s not all doom and gloom in the valley.
[+] [-] cvccvroomvroom|3 years ago|reply
Amazon is a retailer, a logistics company, and a VPS. AWS was spared most layoffs.
[+] [-] jb1991|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greenpizza13|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arthurofbabylon|3 years ago|reply
I’m not sure what’s going on. Obviously Apple has a stronger vision than most tech companies. Obviously most tech companies chase returns and live in fear of missed opportunities. Maybe it is simply this combination of factors that sets Apple apart from the crowd.
[+] [-] papito|3 years ago|reply
By the way, this is a good example of how vision and ideas (Jobs) will not build a successful company alone without execution. Apple always struggled with that until Jobs brought in Cook.
Of course, Steve Jobs would never allow the Weather App in the new MacOS to be so bad compared to Dark Sky ;)
[+] [-] petesergeant|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ojbyrne|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] giarc|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roughly|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ngcc_hk|3 years ago|reply
This is unlike Twitter where a firm is destroyed and people fired not because of situation but because someone has money to burn. And instead of creating a new firm to compete he just fired people of that firm he did not like.
That is the “good” and “bad” of market system. Sorry but both involved firing people.